Re: debian-installer now available in Ports

I've set up some additional jobs at http://jenkins.kfreebsd.eu/jenkins/view/cd/ and after much trial-and-error, there are now (untested) sid netinst images built for: hurd-i386 kfreebsd-amd64 kfreebsd-i386 powerpc You can find the .iso images within each job's workspace e.g.:

Re: debian-installer now available in Ports

On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 01:55:08PM +0100, Steven Chamberlain wrote: >John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: >> Thus, I was wondering whether any volunteers would be willing to help >> building >> ISO images for the various architectures. > >I'm already doing this for kfreebsd-amd64, but only the

Re: debian-installer now available in Ports

Steven Chamberlain, on mer. 12 avril 2017 13:55:08 +0100, wrote: > I expect there might be problems trying to build linux arches from a > kfreebsd host. But we should try to find out, and then maybe fix it. FWIW, I have been building hurd-i386 images from a linux box for a long time without

Re: debian-installer now available in Ports

Hello, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > Thus, I was wondering whether any volunteers would be willing to help building > ISO images for the various architectures. I'm already doing this for kfreebsd-amd64, but only the jessie-kfreebsd suite:

Re: Bug#845193: dpkg: recent -specs PIE changes break openssl

On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 04:35:28PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: >... > On Thu, 2016-11-24 at 14:52:33 +, Thorsten Glaser wrote: >... > > Worse, they break *differently* on whether… > > > > >Precisely to make the behavior consistent on all architectures, dpkg > > >enables PIE (conditionally if

Re: Bug#845193: dpkg: recent -specs PIE changes break openssl

Guillem Jover dixit: >> Yes, but they *do* break anything that >> - acts on the CFLAGS (and LDFLAGS) variables >> - uses klcc or other compiler wrappers that don't understand -specs >> - uses clang or pcc or whatever other compilers > >The default dpkg build flags have always been tied to the

Re: Bug#845193: dpkg: recent -specs PIE changes break openssl

Hi! On Thu, 2016-11-24 at 14:52:33 +, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > clone 845193 -1 > reassign -1 dpkg > retitle -1 dpkg: please do not add -specs= flags only on some architectures > thanks I'm afraid I'll have to wontfix this because it is not really implementable. See below… :/ > Guillem Jover

Re: Booting in text mode

On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 03:58:51PM +0100, Francesco Pietra wrote: Hallo Having upgraded amd64/gnome to jessie, booting occurs graphically while I want graphics to come only when absolutely needed. Also, nautilus of gnome3 is absolutely hostile to scientific use as a quick replacement of shell

Re: Bug#845193: dpkg: recent -specs PIE changes break openssl

clone 845193 -1 reassign -1 dpkg retitle -1 dpkg: please do not add -specs= flags only on some architectures thanks Guillem Jover dixit: >> I cannot build openssl1.0 any longer. Downgrading all binary >> packages from src:dpkg to 1.18.10 makes the build succeed. Interestingly enough,

Re: Samba version in armhf?

On Tuesday 22 Nov 2016, Jo L wrote: > I was trying bananian 16.04 which is based on Debian Jessie armhf on my > Banana Pro, and it turned out that the Samba version 4.2.10 I got is pretty > much outdated. > Looking at https://packages.debian.org/search?arch=armhf=samba I > guess this Is because

Re: Release Architectures for Debian 9 'Stretch'

On 2016-10-31 13:31, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: The only change from Jessie is the removal of powerpc as a release architecture. ...and adding of mips64el. Oops. -- Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org Debian Developer

Re: Enabling PIE by default for Stretch

Hi Maximiliano, 2016-10-10 14:21 GMT+02:00 Maximiliano Curia : > ¡Hola Niels! > > El 2016-10-10 a las 05:44 +, Niels Thykier escribió: >> >> Niels Thykier: >>> >>> As brought up on the meeting last night, I think we should try to go for >>> PIE by default in Stretch on all

Re: Enabling PIE by default for Stretch

¡Hola Niels! El 2016-10-10 a las 05:44 +, Niels Thykier escribió: Niels Thykier: As brought up on the meeting last night, I think we should try to go for PIE by default in Stretch on all release architectures! * It is a substantial hardening feature * Upstream has vastly reduced the

Re: Enabling PIE by default for Stretch

Niels Thykier: > Hi, > > As brought up on the meeting last night, I think we should try to go for > PIE by default in Stretch on all release architectures! > * It is a substantial hardening feature > * Upstream has vastly reduced the performance penalty for x86 > * The majority of all porters

Re: Architecture qualification meeting, scheduling

Adrian Bunk: > [ fullquote adding -ports, for people not following -release or -devel ] > > [...] > > Is https://release.debian.org/stretch/arch_qualify.html the up-to-date > information available to you, and the "candidate" line how a decision > would look like based on the current

Re: Architecture qualification meeting, scheduling

[ fullquote adding -ports, for people not following -release or -devel ] On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 06:35:07PM +0100, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: > Hi, > > I am arranging the final architecture qualification meeting for Stretch. > This is primarily of interest to the release team, but I will also

Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

On Sat, 2016-10-01 at 15:48 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > On 10/01/2016 02:17 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > > > > > > This isn't the case for PowerPC32 where upstream development is still very > > > active because it's part of the PowerPC kernel which is maintained by > > > IBM. > >

Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

On Fri, 2016-09-30 at 22:34 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > On 09/30/2016 09:04 PM, Niels Thykier wrote: > > > > As for "porter qualification" > > = > > > > We got burned during the Jessie release, where a person answered the > > roll call for sparc and we

Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

On Sat, 2016-10-01 at 02:28 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 11:01:55PM +0200, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: [...] > > I have not heard from the ppc64el porters, but I suspect ppc64 will > > not be a release arch. So you need to take into consideration that for > > powerpc to

Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 2:28 AM, Adam Borowski wrote: > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 11:01:55PM +0200, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 10:34 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz >> wrote: >> [...] >> > On the other hand, some packages

Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 11:01:55PM +0200, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 10:34 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz > wrote: > [...] > > On the other hand, some packages dropped support for PowerPC32 like Mono > > but this isn't a concern for most users,

Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

On 09/20/2016 05:46 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > On 09/20/2016 11:16 PM, Niels Thykier wrote: >>- powerpc: No porter (RM blocker) > > I'd be happy to pick up powerpc to keep it for Stretch. I'm already > maintaining powerpcspe which is very similar to powerpc. > Thank you Adrian

Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

Adrian, On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 10:34 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: [...] > On the other hand, some packages dropped support for PowerPC32 like Mono > but this isn't a concern for most users, I would say. [...] Thanks very much for stepping up as porter, you

Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

On 09/30/2016 09:04 PM, Niels Thykier wrote: > As for "porter qualification" > = > > We got burned during the Jessie release, where a person answered the > roll call for sparc and we kept sparc as a release architecture for > Jessie. However, we ended up with a

Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

Niels Thykier: > [...] > > As for "porter qualification" > = > > We got burned during the Jessie release, where a person answered the > roll call for sparc and we kept sparc as a release architecture for > Jessie. However, we ended up with a completely broken and

Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

On Fri, 2016-09-30 at 19:04 +, Niels Thykier wrote: > As for "porter qualification" > = > > We got burned during the Jessie release, where a person answered the > roll call for sparc and we kept sparc as a release architecture for > Jessie. However, we ended up

Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

John Paul Adrian Glaubitz: > On 09/30/2016 06:08 PM, Niels Thykier wrote: >> I strongly /suspect/ that "no porters" for powerpc will imply the >> removal of powerpc for Stretch. It may or may not be moved to ports >> (assuming someone is willing to support it there). > > So, I take this as a

Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 10:03:47AM +0200, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: > [Let's assume that we can't find a powerpc porter in time for Stretch.] Two potential porters stepped up, who might or might not be accepted. > 1. Will `powperpc` automatically be downgraded to simple port ? Or is > this also

Re: Enabling PIE by default for Stretch

atic. > > As agreed on during the [meeting], if there are no major concerns to > this proposal in general within a week, I shall file a bug against GCC > requesting PIE by default on all release architectures (with backing > porters). please re-use #835148 > If there are only

Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

On 09/30/2016 06:08 PM, Niels Thykier wrote: > I strongly /suspect/ that "no porters" for powerpc will imply the > removal of powerpc for Stretch. It may or may not be moved to ports > (assuming someone is willing to support it there). So, I take this as a "no" for the offer from me and

Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

You have a porter for PowerPC. See email from Adrian. ;-) -- Christian Sent from my iPhone > On 30 Sep 2016, at 10:03, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: > > Hi all, > >> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 3:54 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: >>> On 20.09.2016 23:46, John Paul

Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote... > On 09/20/2016 11:16 PM, Niels Thykier wrote: > >- powerpc: No porter (RM blocker) > > I'd be happy to pick up powerpc to keep it for Stretch. I'm already > maintaining powerpcspe which is very similar to powerpc. For somewhat personal reasons I'm

Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

On 09/23/2016 03:54 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: > No, you are not maintaining powerpcspe as a release architecture, and that's > something different than building packages for some of the ports > architectures. > If you can get powerpcspe accepted as a release architecture, then maybe you > gain

Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

On 20.09.2016 23:46, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > On 09/20/2016 11:16 PM, Niels Thykier wrote: >>- powerpc: No porter (RM blocker) > > I'd be happy to pick up powerpc to keep it for Stretch. I'm already > maintaining powerpcspe which is very similar to powerpc. No, you are not

Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 09:16:00PM +, Niels Thykier wrote: > Over all, most people (who answered it) was positive towards the switch. > Based on this, I suspect that if we make PIE default in Stretch, then > we will do it for all architectures. That said, you will be notified if > that

Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

On 09/20/2016 11:16 PM, Niels Thykier wrote: >- powerpc: No porter (RM blocker) I'd be happy to pick up powerpc to keep it for Stretch. I'm already maintaining powerpcspe which is very similar to powerpc. Adrian -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer -

Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

ni...@thykier.net: > Hi, > > Like last release, we are doing a roll call for porters of all release > architectures. If you are an active porter behind one of the [release > architectures] for the entire lifetime of Debian Stretch (est. end of > 2020), please respond with a signed email

Re: The (uncalled for) toolchain maintainers roll call for stretch

Hi Matthias, On 10.09.2016 00:48, Matthias Klose wrote: > While the Debian Release team has some citation about the quality of the > toolchain on their status page, it is not one of the release criteria > documented > by the release team. I'd like to document the status how I do understand it

Re: The (uncalled for) toolchain maintainers roll call for stretch

On 09/10/2016 12:48 AM, Matthias Klose wrote: > Uncovered by the upstream primary and secondary platforms are the mips* > architectures and powerpc. For the uncovered archs I would expect somehow > more > and pro-active Debian maintenance, however I fail to see this happen. > > - see the

Re: The (uncalled for) toolchain maintainers roll call for stretch

Hi, On 10-09-16 00:48, Matthias Klose wrote: > - fpc not available on powerpc anymore (may have changed recently) For whatever it is worth, this was finally fixed this week. It is missing on mips*, ppc64el and s390x though, while at least some form of MIPS is supported upstream. Paul

Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 22:05:06 +0200 ni...@thykier.net wrote: > Like last release, we are doing a roll call for porters of all release > architectures. If you are an active porter behind one of the [release > architectures] for the entire lifetime

Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

Hi! On Sun, 2016-08-21 at 08:22:09 +0200, Niels Thykier wrote: > Kurt Roeckx: > > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 10:05:06PM +0200, ni...@thykier.net wrote: > >> * If we were to enable -fPIE/-pie by default in GCC-6, should that change > >>also apply to this port? [0] > > > > If -fPIE is the

Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

Hi, 2016-08-21 8:22 GMT+02:00 Niels Thykier : > Kurt Roeckx: >> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 10:05:06PM +0200, ni...@thykier.net wrote: >>> * If we were to enable -fPIE/-pie by default in GCC-6, should that change >>>also apply to this port? [0] >> >> If -fPIE is the default

Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

Kurt Roeckx: > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 10:05:06PM +0200, ni...@thykier.net wrote: >> * If we were to enable -fPIE/-pie by default in GCC-6, should that change >>also apply to this port? [0] > > If -fPIE is the default will -fPIC override it? > > It will also default to tell the linker to

Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

Martin Michlmayr: > * ni...@thykier.net [2016-08-17 22:05]: >> 2020), please respond with a signed email containing the following >> before Friday, the 9th of September: > > Can you please specify where to respond to? I don't think dozens of > emails to -ports and -devel make

Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

* ni...@thykier.net [2016-08-17 22:05]: > 2020), please respond with a signed email containing the following > before Friday, the 9th of September: Can you please specify where to respond to? I don't think dozens of emails to -ports and -devel make any sense. Maybe

Re: Failure lauching application since iceweasel -> Firefox

Following dist-upgrade wheezy->jessie, linux prompt could only be reached from 3.2.0-4 sysinit and no screen startx mdprobe error /libkmod/libkmod-module.c:816 kmod_module_insert_module() could not find module by name 'nvidia-current' Then, I adjusted the sources.list as for my GPU work

Re: Failure lauching application since iceweasel -> Firefox

On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 06:57:28PM +0200, Francesco Pietra wrote: > I fear that on the amd64-gnome box my sources list should be amended: > > deb http://debian.netcologne.de/debian/ wheezy main contrib non-free Wheezy is long gone, given jessie was release well over a year ago now. Might be

Re: Failure lauching application since iceweasel -> Firefox

I fear that on the amd64-gnome box my sources list should be amended: deb http://debian.netcologne.de/debian/ wheezy main contrib non-free > deb-src http://debian.netcologne.de/debian/ wheezy main contrib non-free > > deb http://security.debian.org/ wheezy/updates main contrib non-free > deb-src

Re: Failure lauching application since iceweasel -> Firefox

Here the reply by the developer of Vuescan, who had already let me know that he never heard of iceweasel: This isn’t being started from VueScan code – it’s probably > something in a shared library. > > Regards, > Ed Hamrick > so, it seems to be an issue to be resolved within amd64 (Vuescan code

Re: Failure lauching application since iceweasel -> Firefox

Why don't you try http://www.palemoon.org installed as a portable (like /opt/palemoon) you don't need the installer, just unzip the package in place.

Re: Failure lauching application since iceweasel -> Firefox

On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 04:08:36PM +0200, Francesco Pietra wrote: > On last "upgrade" of amd64 wheezy I found Firefox in place of iceweasel. > OK, except that the single commercial application in my box (Vuescan) now > fails to upgrade > > > francesco@tya64:~/Vuescan$ ./vuescan > gvfs-open:

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

> For the ARM ports, which have also been clarified, let me re-confirm: > * arm64 port has remote power and remote console available, plus > geo-redundancy, hardware is available and there is more hardware > coming in the pipeline. I am unsure why it is listed with multiple DSA > con

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

(sorry for jumping in late here) On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 07:51:55AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Wed, 2016-06-15 at 01:37 +0300, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: > > > At the openmainframeproject EU meetup, it was indicated that SUSE > > joined with indication that Open Build Service might be able to

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 10:35:20PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Yeah, apparently it's cheaper to bootstrap a complete new little endian > platform than to fix portability issues in existing software... I believe a big reason is that Nvidia cards expect little endian data, and the overhead

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 8:32 PM, Nelson H. F. Beebe wrote: > Recent traffic on this list has discussed Debian on PowerPC and > big-endian vs little-endian. > > The next-generation US national laboratory facilities are to be based > on PowerPC, and one source that I read

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

Recent traffic on this list has discussed Debian on PowerPC and big-endian vs little-endian. The next-generation US national laboratory facilities are to be based on PowerPC, and one source that I read mentioned little-endian, likely for binary file compatibility with files produced on Intel x86

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 2016-06-20 10:29, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: On 06/20/2016 04:15 PM, Lennart Sorensen wrote: On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 04:11:32PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: Well, we just did a full archive rebuild of "ppc64" to be able to support ppc64 on the e5500 cores by disabling

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 06/20/2016 04:15 PM, Lennart Sorensen wrote: > On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 04:11:32PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: >> Well, we just did a full archive rebuild of "ppc64" to be able to >> support ppc64 on the e5500 cores by disabling AltiVec, didn't we? > > Well it is getting there. The

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 04:11:32PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > Well, we just did a full archive rebuild of "ppc64" to be able to > support ppc64 on the e5500 cores by disabling AltiVec, didn't we? Well it is getting there. -- Len Sorensen

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 06/20/2016 04:05 PM, Lennart Sorensen wrote: > Also I suspect many users of 64 bit capable freescale chips > (e5500 and e6500 cores) are running 32 bit powerpc since they > don't have enough ram to actually really gain anything > from going to 64 bit, and the ppc64 port isn't done yet. Well,

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 08:35:02PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > Do they implement the ISA required by the existing Debian port? Yes. The only ones that don't are the Freescale 85xx and P10[12]x chips, which are powerpcspe due to using the e500 core. All the 83xx and 82xx chips which are still

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

* Lennart Sorensen: > There are a lot of 32bit powerpc chips still going into embedded systems > being built today. They are not going away anytime soon. Do they implement the ISA required by the existing Debian port?

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

> In other words, i don't think a s390x box will ever just die. I'm sure “death” encompasses all events which might lead Debian to lose access to relevant hardware. It's not just about faults with a piece of equipment.

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 19 June 2016 at 02:25, William ML Leslie wrote: > > In case it isn't clear, the number of users of the architecture is not part > of the qualification, it is the amount of maintenance pressure involved. > Package maintainers have to put more effort into ensuring

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 06/18/2016 06:25 PM, William ML Leslie wrote: > In case it isn't clear, the number of users of the architecture is not part > of the qualification, it is the amount of maintenance pressure involved. > Package > maintainers have to put more effort into ensuring builds succeed for release >

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

In case it isn't clear, the number of users of the architecture is not part of the qualification, it is the amount of maintenance pressure involved. Package maintainers have to put more effort into ensuring builds succeed for release architectures, which detracts from other work that needs to be

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

I run all sorts of PowerPC machines with various versions of Debian and I don't see that coming to end anytime soon. These are excellent and reliable machines. Biggest issues/hurdles are just graphics at the moment for both ATI/AMD and Nvidia cards, but even if that is never resolved/fixed or

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

Hi, Dan DeVoto wrote: In addition to the debian powerpc mailing list, powerpc users are active on the Ubuntu forums. I'm running Debian Sid on a Powerbook and everything works except 3D acceleration. I don't see a need to drop it. I hope that my iBook G3 will serve me for years to come!

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 09:04:12AM +0200, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: > The debian-powerpc@l.d.o mailing list is active so I would say it > still has some users. I have been using partch.d.o for doing some work > on PowerPC. I posted a summary of work people have been doing on this > port lately: >

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 2016-06-15 00:37, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: There is openmainframe project https://www.openmainframeproject.org/ , which I believe offers access to z/VM instances hosted by Marist colledge. At the openmainframeproject EU meetup, it was indicated that SUSE joined with indication that Open

RE: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

Here too all new amiga Ng are PPC with last generations of gpu pcie Amd boards and we are using linux expecially Debian. Luigi From: herminio.hernande...@gmail.com Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 22:02:29 -0700 Subject: Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification To: hector.o...@gmail.com CC

Re: unsubsribe

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 2:00 AM, simoon wrote: > unsubsribe Try https://www.debian.org/MailingLists/subscribe. (Its not the easiest to find; and the top search result hides it rather than stating it clearly).

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

erns. > > I understand s390x and ppc64el DSA concerns have been clarified > in-list and those concerns are due to nature of the architecture. > > For the ARM ports, which have also been clarified, let me re-confirm: > * arm64 port has remote power and remote console available, plus &

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

4el DSA concerns have been clarified in-list and those concerns are due to nature of the architecture. For the ARM ports, which have also been clarified, let me re-confirm: * arm64 port has remote power and remote console available, plus geo-redundancy, hardware is available and there is more h

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016, at 18:37, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: > > There is openmainframe project https://www.openmainframeproject.org/ , > which I believe offers access to z/VM instances hosted by Marist > colledge. > > At the openmainframeproject EU meetup, it was indicated that SUSE > joined with

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On Wed, 2016-06-15 at 01:37 +0300, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: > At the openmainframeproject EU meetup, it was indicated that SUSE > joined with indication that Open Build Service might be able to use > resources hosted by Marist. > > I wonder if it makes sense to reach out, and see if there are

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 14 June 2016 at 20:22, wrote: > On 2016-06-14 03:06, Philipp Kern wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 07:33:56PM +, Niels Thykier wrote: >>> >>> Philipp Kern: >>> > On 2016-06-05 12:01, Niels Thykier wrote: >>> >> * amd64, i386, armel, armhf, arm64, mips,

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 06/14/2016 09:06 AM, Philipp Kern wrote: > Yeah, but that's unfortunately one of the universal truths of this port. > I mean in theory sometimes they turn up on eBay and people try to make > them work[1]. Hilarious talk, thanks a lot for the link :). > It also seems true for other ports where

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 14/06/16 09:06, Philipp Kern wrote: > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 07:33:56PM +, Niels Thykier wrote: >> Philipp Kern: >>> On 2016-06-05 12:01, Niels Thykier wrote: * amd64, i386, armel, armhf, arm64, mips, mipsel, powerpc, ppc64el, s390x - *No* blockers at this time from

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 07:33:56PM +, Niels Thykier wrote: > Philipp Kern: > > On 2016-06-05 12:01, Niels Thykier wrote: > >> * amd64, i386, armel, armhf, arm64, mips, mipsel, powerpc, ppc64el, > >>s390x > >>- *No* blockers at this time from RT, DSA nor security. > >>- s390,

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

Philipp Kern: > On 2016-06-05 12:01, Niels Thykier wrote: >> * amd64, i386, armel, armhf, arm64, mips, mipsel, powerpc, ppc64el, >>s390x >>- *No* blockers at this time from RT, DSA nor security. >>- s390, ppc64el and all arm ports have DSA concerns. > > What is the current DSA

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 2016-06-05 12:01, Niels Thykier wrote: * amd64, i386, armel, armhf, arm64, mips, mipsel, powerpc, ppc64el, s390x - *No* blockers at this time from RT, DSA nor security. - s390, ppc64el and all arm ports have DSA concerns. What is the current DSA concern about s390x? Kind regards

Re: About structure sk_buff

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 3:10 AM, Corcodel Marian wrote: > > > On 06.06.2016 12:59, Corcodel Marian wrote: > >> Hi >> Why sk_buff have memory allocated on hardware drivers on majority nic >> drivers? >> > This seems like an appropriate question for netdev mailing list:

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

age count is now close to 11100, although this fluctuates. Using this measure we are at the same level as alpha, ppc64 and sparc64. SMP systems are stable and run reliably as buildd machines. Even if we increased our relative package count, we don't have the manpower to re-qualify as

Re: About structure sk_buff

On 06.06.2016 12:59, Corcodel Marian wrote: Hi Why sk_buff have memory allocated on hardware drivers on majority nic drivers? This is wrong on rx mode look like: struct sk_buff *skb; struct device *d = >pci_dev->dev; data = rtl8169_align(data); dma_sync_single_for_cpu(d,

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

Steven Chamberlain: > Hi, > Hi, > John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: >> I have invested lots of time and effort to get sparc64 into a usable state >> in Debian. >> We are close to 11.000 installed packages. Missing packages include Firefox, >> Thunderbird/Icedove, golang and LibreOffice to name

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

Hi, On Sun, 2016-06-05 at 13:26 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > sh4: > > > The two biggest issues with sh4 are currently with binutils and the > kernel. binutils has problems when building Qt5: > There is in fact another big elephant in the room, which I have mentioned several

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

thanks to everyone explaining arch:any to me :) -- cheers, Holger signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

Hi, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > I have invested lots of time and effort to get sparc64 into a usable state in > Debian. > We are close to 11.000 installed packages. Missing packages include Firefox, > Thunderbird/Icedove, golang and LibreOffice to name the most important ones. Is there

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 05/06/16 13:00, Holger Levsen wrote: On Sun, Jun 05, 2016 at 01:26:39PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: ppc64: This architecture is basically on par with the release architectures. We have over 11.000 packages installed [...] sparc64: We are close to 11.000

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 06/05/2016 02:00 PM, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Sun, Jun 05, 2016 at 01:26:39PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: >> ppc64: >> >> This architecture is basically on par with the release architectures. We >> have over >> 11.000 packages installed > [...] >> sparc64: >> We are close to

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 06/05/2016 02:00 PM, Holger Levsen wrote: > I'm not sure whether you are talking about source or binary packages but > sid/amd64 has over 24000 source packages and over 5 binary packages, > so I would call the above "on par". Or what am I missing? There are just around 12,000 source

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On Sun, Jun 05, 2016 at 01:26:39PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > ppc64: > > This architecture is basically on par with the release architectures. We have > over > 11.000 packages installed [...] > sparc64: > We are close to 11.000 installed packages. I'm not sure whether you are

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

Hi Niels! On 06/05/2016 12:01 PM, Niels Thykier wrote: > Beyond mips64el, we are not aware of any new architectures for Stretch. > > I kindly ask you to: > > * Porters, please assert if your architecture is targeting Stretch. To give some insight what's happening in Debian Ports. We have two

Re: Rename amd64 to klinux-amd64

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 05:04:06AM -0700, Amir H. Firouzian wrote: > Hello alls, > Due to fact that other kernels are become populate like BSD, and Debian is > universal OS, So is it better to rename all Ports and mention the kernel > use that inside like kfreebsd-amd64 or khurd-i386? > >

Re: Please explain

On Sat, Jan 09, 2016 at 04:28:18AM -0800, Will Puffenbarger wrote: > New user need explain for difference between 32 and 64 bit how to get to > ubuntu faster on smaller device by faking pathways Well the difference between 32 and 64 bit is: 64 bit x86 has twice as many registers (which makes

Re: chroot debian

On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 04:19:56 -0800 Will Puffenbarger wrote: > Please explain section and how they intermingle and pro's and con's Are you referring to the component system (main, contrib, non-free)?

Re: Fwd: Re: Bug#571136: please remove useless devices from devices.tar.gz

Hi, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Jan 10, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > > We have a bug report with a patch by Marco against debootstrap (see > > attachment), which changes how devices are generated; I can't really > > tell how much this might affect all of you (especially with

Re: Fwd: Re: Bug#571136: please remove useless devices from devices.tar.gz

On Jan 10, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > We have a bug report with a patch by Marco against debootstrap (see > attachment), which changes how devices are generated; I can't really > tell how much this might affect all of you (especially with debootstrap It is not supposed to, since

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >